The general secretary of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales issued the following statement this morning in response to Cardinal Bertone's attempt to link sex abuse of minors to homosexuality:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no empirical data which concludes that sexual orientation is connected to child sexual abuse.
The consensus among researchers is that the sexual abuse of children is not a question of sexual ‘orientation’, whether heterosexual or homosexual, but of a disordered attraction or ‘fixation’.
Many abusers of children have never developed the capacity for mature adult relationships. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or both.
In the sexual abuse of children the issue is the sexual fixation of the abusers and not their sexual orientation.
The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have adopted policies which ensure that all candidates for the priesthood undergo a thorough psychological screening. All candidates for the priesthood and diaconate are required to demonstrate the capacity for mature relationships and a fully integrated sexuality appropriate to their celibate or married way of life.
Rev Fr Marcus Stock
General Secretary, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales
Meanwhile, the Vatican's spokesman Fr Lombardi has put out the following statement:
Church authorities do not consider it their responsibility to make general statements of a specifically physiological or medical character, which is why they naturally refer back to experts study and ongoing research on the subject. With regards the ecclesiastical authorities competence, in the area of the causes of abuse of minors by priests in recent years addressed by the Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith, the statistical data was reported in the interview by Mgr. Scicluna, according to which about 10% of cases were paedophilia in the strict sense, while 90% were cases of ephebophilia (ie towards adolescents). Of these approximately 60% referred to individuals of the same sex and 30% of heterosexual character. We refer here of course to the problem of abuse by priests and not in the general population.
I've written about Bertone's imprudence in the Guardian here.
Austen Ivereigh
No Joe, it doesn't (except to you because you have a notion that this is a "gay man's crime" notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary).
"The John Jay Report does not answer this second question but CERTAINLY supports this as a possibility." It does no such thing-it doesn't say anything about the abusers' political views or ethnicity either so can't make conclusions about those. You are employing "argumentum ad ignorantiam" or the "fallacy of negative proof" as your argument. No disrespect intended, but if you brought your mistaken sense of how to do research and draw conclusions into a scientific setting you would be laughed out of the room.
As I re-read your #30, however, I notice that you quote? Margaret Smith (one of the John Jay researchers) who said: ''At this point, we do not find a correlation between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse.'' This seems right, and it fits the other research on abuse, i.e., the vast majority of those who engage in sexual abuse-Scout Masters, ministers & priests, family members, et al.-are not gay men. Again, I'm happy to read any evidence you have that challenges this. I suspect there isn't any. In any case, have a nice weekend.
If the Jay Report showed the 80% of abusing priests had female victims it would be reasonable for me to think it possible that most of the priests were heterosexual. This would not prove this but it would be a reasonable hypothesis.
If the Jay Report shows that 80% of abusing priests had male victims then it would be reasonable to think it possible that most of the priests were homosexual.
I have no proof that most priests were homosexual but the Jay report is very suggestive data. It would take further study of this data to confirm or refute this possibility. Instead one of the Jay researchers just flat out dismisses this possibility. That is very poor science!
"The independent research carried out by John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York found that ... About 80 per cent of the accusations were of abuse alleged to have occurred between the 1960s and the 1980s, after which they fell off sharply."
While I accept this statement as factually correct, I think it is being missused to give us a sense that the abuse was an artifact of the times. This interpretation, I think, is dangerously false and leads us to false conclusions and inadequate solutions. I will repeat evidence to the contrary which no one on this blog has yet refuted but which most have ignored.
1. Priestly adultery and sexual abuse is discussed thoroughly in the Augsburg Confession, dated 1530. (Google "Augsburg Confession"). The same kinds of abuse that are being discussed today were the principal reasons that the Reformers rejected clerical celibacy. This proves that the abuse is not new and not an artifact of the times.
2. Sexual abuse of young people is a latent crime. Many abused victims are not able to deal with it or report it for 10 to 30 years. I hold that the reason the abuse cases taper off in the 1990's is that many of those cases are not yet ripe enough in the lives of the victims to start coming out.
3. Sexual abuse by clergy is also spiritual abuse. Several of the testimonies shared on this blog in recent days have described how the priests produced spiritual shame in the victims to keep them quiet. This increases the latency of the crime.
4. I think the internet is the reason all the abuse is now coming to light. Before the internet, victims could not find each other and communicate freely with each other. The traditional press was loathe to engage in "anti-religious" or "anti-Catholic" reporting, especially for such a terrible subject. Whenever someone raised the specter of priestly sex abuse, it immediately invoked in people's mind a lot of the very old, hard-Protestant, anti-Catholic rhetoric that I learned so well in my youth. Modern, "enlightented, liberal" journalists just did not want to go there.
5. Abuse occuring before the 1960's or 1950's will always remain hidden because the vicitims that successfully dissociated themselves from it will never discuss it and those who could not are dead of alchoholism, suicide or other life-destroying solutions to their pain.
The reasons that I give above show that it is only our current knowledge of the abuse that is limited to the 1960's through 1980's. My heart tells me that substantial abuse is going on today, even as I write, just as it went on in the 1970's and 1530's. I must consider it seriously irresponsible to imply anything else, because to do so means that the causes of the abuse are a thing of the past.
I am not a dogmatic person. But I demand that people speak with truth as best they are able. If any of these statements I have made are shown to be in error, I will gladly retract them. I also request that Austin Iverleigh and others at America look into this in detail. I trust their integrity.
I do not offer a solution the causes of priestly adultery, rape and statutory rape of minors. I understand that celibate Buddist monks have spiritual practices to manage sexuality and sexual energy. The solution of the Reformers, Orthodox and Eastern Rites is allow their priests to marry. Marriage brings sexuality out into the open, without shame. However, we cannot start the conversation about a solution until we admit that sexual abuse by priests unable to manage their celibacy is a huge and ongoing problem that demands an ongoing solution.
Proponents of liberalism and homosexuality like to focus on the clinical definition of pedophilia because under that definition, the sex of the victim/abuser is irrelvant. That way, they can focus on the abusive priests, generally, and attack the Church for creating a culture that facilitates abuse.
However, when the victims are post-pubsecent, as 90% are in this case, then the sexual orientation of the abusers becomes relevant, much to the chagrin of the liberal/homosexual proponents.
In the present case, since most of the victims were post-pubescent boys, then the abuse that took place was of a sexual nature (not asexual pedophilial in the clinical sense). That is, most of the abuse in these cases was committed by homosexual priests. Berteone's view is right.
What's your sources????.
here is what John Jay report says; paid for by the bishops'
here is the data from the John Jay study(page 70, Table 4.3.2): [stolen fair and square from the Commonweal blog.]
Table 4.3.2 VICTIM’S AGE AT FIRST INSTANCE OF ABUSEAge Pct CumPct1 0.04% 0.04%2 0.12% 0.17%3 0.25% 0.41%4 0.46% 0.87%5 0.92% 1.79%6 1.76% 3.55%7 2.46% 6.01%8 4.12% 10.13%9 4.04% 14.17%10 8.40% 22.57%11 9.99% 32.56%12 14.77% 47.33% these are 6th graders13 12.74% 60.07%14 13.26% 73.34% these are considered pre pubesent [8th graders[---
15 11.63% 84.97%16 8.59% 93.56%17 6.44% 100.00%
Please note that at age 14 and below is where 73.34% of the case are . Your 90% is a made up number by homophobes in and out of the Church and we all know who they are.
Setting aside the fact that 60 percent of abuse victims were 13 or younger, and 47 percent were 12 or younger, with the most "popular" age being 12 (the age of 14.77% of the abuse victims), this ignores the caution by the John Jay researchers that heterosexual men can (and do) commit homosexual acts, and that there is no evidence to date that homosexual priests are any more likely to abuse than heterosexual ones.
People are certainly free to disagree with the John Jay researchers, but I think for those who are going to rely on the John Jay Report for statistics, they at least have to acknowledge what those who created the report have to say about their own findings.
I am not bothered by any scholarly consensus. I am just interested in why the priest abuser is 80% likely to abuse a pubescent or post-pubescent boy. I never said this is due to homosexuality. What about the priesthood would contribute to a heterosexual to favor abusing the same sex?
Has this been discussed? What is your opinion?
I wonder how that could have happened. Do you suppose it is because gays are daily victims of random violence on our streets, that gay teenagers are three times more likely to be victims of suicide, because in most states it is perfectly legal to fire someone merely because he is gay, because gay teenagers are routinely thrown out of their homes by their families to become homeless, because being gay will soon become punishable by death in Uganda and is already a capital offense in many nations, because priests regularly humiliate gay people in parishes, because gay people are still victims of random police brutality in this nation, because gay people were basically left to die during the height of the AIDS epidemic, because the Vatican continually defames gay people?
Gee, I can't imagine why people would think that gay people are victims of any kind of false accusations or how they gained this unmerited outcast status. So please, David Smith and company, enlighten us on how the present crisis is also our fault. Feel free to speak, as you call it, ''openly and honestly.''
You need to look at the Jay numbers closer. Only 10% of those abused were 10 and under. There then is a sharp rise. If pedophilia is the main problem then you would see a more even distribution among the 10 and under but in fact the numbers are very low. The average age of puberty in boys is about 11 years old. Also the average age of abuse increases with each decade since the 1950s. The average age in the 1980's is about 13 years old and the average age by 1990 is 14 years old.
Something is going on to explain this data. Why did the Jay report find that 80% of those abused are male. The percent of boys in the over 10 group is probably even higher since true pedophilia tends not to have a sex preference. Why are priest sex abusers over 80% more likely to abuse boys? If this is not homosexual or gay then why do these heterosexuals have this same sex attraction? If thisis not a homosexual problem then how should the Church and the priesthood minister to ''heterosexuals'' with this same sex attraction?
Numbers galore there. And Fr. Beck reads them right. Because he's not trying to prove a homophobic point. In fact, as he notes - with authentic Catholic insight - "To link homosexuality and pedophilia (or ephebophilia) is obviously erroneous, uninformed and irresponsible."
This is not a numbers game. This is data that we can use to try to protect future children.
The data shows that this is not a ''pedophilia'' problem but mainly a problem with abuse against pubescent and post-pubescent boys.
An honest person who cares about this issue will ask the question why!
It seems like this issue has been discussed to death on this website and elsewhere but bloggers such as Joe keep posting the same comments. They're redundant and irritating.
Joe, what part of the scholarly consensus about a disordered attraction or ‘fixation’ bothers you? If you want to take on the psychology profession, be my guest (they're not infallible), but do you have any evidence (scholarship, studies, etc.) that they're wrong? If not, can we please move on?
Did you read Fr. Beck's article?
There's a wealth of numbers there, many of them precisely the ones you keep repeating.
But he reaches a very different conclusion than you do about those numbers.
I wonder what you think of that conclusion and of his reading of the data?
I just read it now. I don't think he addresses my question of why the priest is so much more likely to abuse a pubescent or post-pubescent boy than a girl. There is an irrefutable ''attraction'' for the same sex regardless of whether you call the abusing priest a homosexual or a heterosexual.
He also lumps pedophilia with abuse of pubescent boys and girls. He might be right to do this but I am not sure that this is correct. These seem to be two very different disorders.
It seems to me that people have trouble looking at this data objectively for fear that it might reflect negatively on those who are call ''homosexual'' or ''gay''. I think this is a very dangerous thing. It reminds me of bishops who did things to protect ''the Church'' rather than things to protect the children. We need to look at the data for one reason only; to protect the children.
I will grant you that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Do the scholars also say there is no link between homosexuality and the abuse of pubescent and post-pubescent boys? If so then I will grant you this point.
Clearly there is an association between the priest sexual abuse and the abuse of pubescent and post-pubescent boys. Why is this? Does this have something to do with the priesthood. I see that some suggest this is due to celebacy which would make no sense to me at all. Why do you think this is the case?
The first question is more difficult but my understanding is that gay men are attracted to men well past the age of puberty (15 yrs. old & older).
I am not sure what your comment about ''gay men are attracted to men well past the age of puberty'' has to do with my question: ''Clearly there is an association between the priest sexual abuse and the abuse of pubescent and post-pubescent boys. Why is this? Does this have something to do with the priesthood? ''
The Jay report says that 80% of the abused were male. If this 80% are not primarily abused by homosexual/gay men then why is there such a predominence of abuse of boys by heterosexual priests?
If you care about preventing the abuse of children by priests then wouldn't you want to understand why priests prefer to abuse boys?
You do know that the sexual orientation of the perpetrator has little if anything to do with sexual abuse, especially with those under age 15, right?
I am not sure why my question is difficult to understand. I am not asking about sexual orientation. I am asking about the fact that 80% of piests who sexual abuse choose to sexually abuse boys. Why? If it is not sexual orientation then what is the reason for the overwhelming preference for boys by the abusing priest?
Do you disagree with the Jay data? If not then how would you explain this? Is it something about being a priest that would make you prefer to abuse a boy rather than a girl?
Sexual abuse is a crime of opportunity.
I think you have an excellent point! I would agree that ''sexual abuse is a crime of opportunity''. I also think that those who abuse either intentionally or subconciously PUT themselves in positions where they will have access to those who they would abuse (thus the popularity for teaching, pediatrics, coaching, etc.).
I have no data or problem with the statement that abuse might be equally common in heter and homo sexual orientation.
However, is it possible that the man with a same sex attraction who has a disordered inclination to abuse a child might consciously or subconsciouly pick a ''job'' that would give him greater access to a boy? Although heterosexuals can and do abuse pubescent and post-pubescent boys, I find it hard to believe that the sexual abuse of boys would not be more common in a homosexual man. Just as I think a heterosexual man would be more likely than a homosexual man to abuse a pubescent or post-pubescent girl.
Would you agree or disagree that this is a possibility?
This isn't my area of expertise but every scholarly article I have read says that it isn't. I'd be happy to read scholars that argue otherwise.
David, I have no idea what you are talking about.
We are not talking about pedophilia but pubescent boys. I think the Jay report stresses that heterosexuals can and do abuse boys. I don't think that they say this is equally common.
As I look into this it is even more concerning. It looks to me that the John Jay Report makes a comment downplaying homosexuality but not backing it up. I cannot find reference in the actual report but there was a comment by one of the researchers at the bishop's assembly.
Margaret Smith (one of the John Jay researchers) said: ''At this point, we do not find a correlation between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse,''
Yet I can find no reference to data that backs up this assertion (if someone has this data then please correct me).
On the surface this assertion seems ignorant since there is the fact of 80% of pubescent boys being molested by male priests. This seems to justify some speculation as to the ''increased likelihood''.
The problem with discussing this issue is that emotions are so high concerning any negative statement about homosexuality. People do not like being called homophobic, bigots, and gay bashers.
I will leave this discussion with a link to two discussions.
Here is Richard John Neuhaus' discussion of this issue:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/the-catholic-reform-41
Here is a great article by a Johns Hopkins psychiatrist concerning his experience with questioning the liberal elite view of sexuality.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/surgical-sex-35
No, sexual BEHAVIOR is determined largely by behavior. Orientation and behavior are not the same. If they were, most male prisoners who engage in male-on-male sex would have to have made a huge orientation change once the jails doors clang shut.
The John Jay Report does not say this! They never explain the disproportionate abuse by men against pubescent and post-pubescent males! The data suggests there is an issue. I agree that there are multiple ways to explain the data but the data does not refute the issue of whether homosexuals account for the majority of abuse.
Over my years I have seen inappropriate contact between a scout master and children, I have seen inappropriate contact between a single man and a hired boy who was working on his appartment, and I have seen inapppropriate contact between a high school priest and high school boys. In all three of these cases it was obvious to me that the adult had a same sex attraction. This is my personal experience so it is an anecdote but I think it is foolish not to look at this issue objectively!
It seems very important to you that gay men be held responsible for much of this sexual abuse. I very sorry guys but the evidence doesn't allow for this conclusion.
Your problem isn't really with me but with the facts as presented by scholars. The best way to "be enlightened" as David puts it is to read up on the literature a bit or enroll in a psychology or social work course.
It is not important to me that gay men be held responsible for much of the sexual abuse unless they are responsible. Wouldn't you agree?
I have only asked questions to try to understand the data. The researchers have not explained the data.
One can believe that sex abuse is equally common in hetero and homosexual individuals but still wonder whether the majority of priest abusers were homosexual. As you said priests have easier access to boys. This ''job'' would attract those who favor the male sex.
I don't understand why you and others are so closed-minded to this possibility.
Are you familiar with this evidence or are you just trusting the "experts"?
We are going around in circles. There are two issues. First the question of whether sex abuse is more common in homo or heterosexual individual. I am not questioning this issue.
The second issue is whether the priest sex abuse crisis was predominantly homosexual priest abusers.
The John Jay Report does not answer this second question but CERTAINLY supports this as a possibility. This is a huge data set. I would bet it is a larger data set than any other research that you can find. There is no data in the Jay report that would refute the assertion that the priest sex abuser might be predominantly homosexual. If you see this data in the Jay Report then please show me. One possible conclusion based on the predominant male victim who was 90% likely to be 11 or older is that the male abuser was homosexual. You can draw other conclusions. Based on the data, I see no proof of any of these conclusions.
Slow down! I said the data supports this as a "possibility". I never said that it proves this to be the case. The data also does NOT prove it to be false!
The Jay data taken by itself most certainly would support this possibility. I will repeat the data greater than 80% of those abused were boys who were 11 or older. The were abused by men. Without knowing the sexual orientation of these men you cannot prove that the majority are or are not homosexual. It is possible that the majority are homosexual.
Show me the Jay data that contradicts this statement.
Another argument could be that since the priesthood gives easy access to boys then those abusers who have an attraction to males would seek the priesthood or would be more tempted to abuse while in the priesthood. This is not a proof but a hypothesis. The Jay Report has no data to refute this hypothesis.
I admit that I do not no the truth in this matter. You seem to no the truth with certainty (albeit without data).
Since you are the one making the argument that the experts are wrong, i.e. that there is some connection between sexual abuse and the abuser being a gay man, it is your responsibility to prove your argument, not mine. Do you have any? You haven't proven your argument just because the Jay Report seems not to addressed this issue (of course there is the Smith quote which suggests otherwise). What we are left with then are the scholarly literature which say there is no connection and your "trick leg" which tells you there might be a connection.
This is hardly the case of a draw.